BIZweek n°44 9 mai 2015
BIZweek n°44 9 mai 2015
  • Prix facial : gratuit

  • Parution : n°44 de 9 mai 2015

  • Périodicité : hebdomadaire

  • Editeur : Capital Publications Ltd

  • Format : (260 x 370) mm

  • Nombre de pages : 14

  • Taille du fichier PDF : 4,6 Mo

  • Dans ce numéro : à qui appartient Century Banking Corporation Limited ?

  • Prix de vente (PDF) : gratuit

Dans ce numéro...
< Pages précédentes
Pages : 6 - 7  |  Aller à la page   OK
Pages suivantes >
6 7
A C T A P U B L I C A 6 DIFFAMATION ALLÉGUÉE SAMEDI 09 MAI 2015 BIZWEEK ÉDITION 44 JEAN-MÉE DESVEAUX DÉSAVOUÉ EN COUR SUPRÊME Douze ans après les faits, le juge Asraf Caunhye a rejeté les arguments de Jean-Mée Desvaux dans le procès en diffamation qu’il intentait à Robert Ng. Il lui reprochait des propos parus dans un article du journal Le Quotidien, qui appartient à Neron Publications, une compagnie dont Robert Ng est le propriétaire Revoilà la notion de personnage public remis sur le tapis. Robert Ng, qui avait juré de se battre jusqu’au bout contre Jean-Mée Desveaux dans un procès en diffamation que ce dernier lui intentait, a eu gain de cause, en Cour suprême, auprès du juge Asraf Caunhye. Jean-Mée Desveaux, connu dans les années 2000 comme le super conseiller de Paul Bérenger, se disait être une victime de propos diffamatoires publiés dans le journal Le Quotidien et réclamait Rs 5 millions de dommages. « Nou pou démembré Jean-Mée Desveaux. » C’est cette phrase, parue en 2003 dans le journal Le Quotidien – qui appartient à la compagnie Neron Publications de Robert Ng – qui est à l’origine de l’affaire. L’article, qui évoque les fonds non-retracés suite au méga-scandale MCB-NPF survenu quelques mois avant, fait état de la conférence de presse de Vasant Bunwaree, à l’époque le Secrétaire-général du Parti travailliste, qui se trouvait dans l’opposition. L’auteur de l’article rapporte les intentions de Vasant Bunwaree de dénoncer des scandales dans un meeting public à venir et cite ces mots qu’il lui attribue : « Nou pou démembré Jean-Mée Desveaux. » Une phrase qui n’a pas plu à l’ex-super conseiller, qui a médité là-dessus pendant quatre longues années avant de retenir, en 2007, les services d’un Queen’s Counsel pour servir du papier timbré à Robert Ng. Interrogé, durant le procès, sur les raisons pour lesquelles il avait attendu aussi longtemps pour loger sa plainte, Jean-Mée Desveaux avait affirmé qu’il était un homme important entre 2003 et 2007 et qu’il était donc très occupé. Robert Ng, rédacteur en chef de Le Quotidien et représentant de la compagnie Neron Publications, a affirmé pour sa part ne pas comprendre pourquoi Jean- Mée Desveaux s’était senti visé par cet article. « Si vous examinez l’affaire MCB-NPF qui dominait l’actualité à l’époque, le nom de Jean-Mée Desveaux n’a jamais été mentionné dans ce scandale. Pas un seul mot sur lui. Je ne comprends pas comment il trouve que l’article peut lui être attribué. Certes, le Dr Bunwaree avait affirmé qu’il allait dénoncer Jean-Mée Desveaux, ce qui veut dire que le Ptr avait planifié de le critiquer à son meeting. Je ne vois rien d’anormal, c’est une personnalité publique et il doit donc s’attendre à être critiqué », devait-il affirmer. Un argument retenu par le juge Caunhye, qui explique, dans son jugement, que : « The article, read as a whole, does not convey to the ordinary, reasonable and fair-minded reader of the newspaper any of the defamatory meaning ascribed to the article by the plaintiff. In any event, given the functions of the plaintiff as a special adviser appointed by the Deputy Prime Minister, it was reasonable to expect that the plaintiff should be subjected to public scrutiny and a certain degree of criticism in respect of his functions, the more so where issues of public interest are involved. « The words used with regard to the plaintiff, in the context of such an article, did not convey to the ordinary reader any of the defamatory meaning ascribed to it by the plaintiff and do not for any of the reasons invoked by the plaintiff amount to a « faute ». » Dans sa plaidoirie, Me Ho Chan Fong, le représentant du défendeur, avait insisté que Jean-Mée Desveaux siégeait sur plusieurs conseils d’administration, et qu’il avait concédé, en Cour, qu’il n’avait pas de pouvoirs décisionnels comme peuvent avoir le président ou le CEO de ces instances. Selon l’avocat, quelqu’un qui n’a pas de pouvoir sur ces instances ne peut se sentir visé par des critiques contre ces mêmes instances. « Monsieur Desveaux avait été nommé par Paul Bérenger sur ces Boards pour veiller à ce que tout se passe bien et l’informer au cas contraire. Il est normal que si les choses ne se passaient pas bien, il ferait l’objet de critiques », avait souligné Robert Ng. Ce dernier a donc insisté que les propos publiés dans le journal qu’il dirigeait étaient juste. De plus, a expliqué le juge Caunhye, The article, read as a whole, does not convey to the ordinary, reasonable and fairminded reader of the newspaper any of the defamatory meaning ascribed to the article by the plaintiff on ne peut relever qu’une seule ligne dans l’article en question qui pourrait évoquer un cas de diffamation. « A reading of the whole of the article would not convey to a notional reasonable reader that the plaintiff was involved in the « MCB/NPF scandal » or any fraudulent contract dealing at the Waste Water Authority or is guilty of any fraudulent and corrupt manoeuvres as contended by the plaintiff. The ordinary reader could not have failed to notice that the article consisted of various issues of great public concern which would be raised at the political meeting. « The plaintiff however was not associated with practically any of the issues raised. The article no doubt announces that the plaintiff would be severely attacked at the forthcoming meeting. But such a statement made in relation to the plaintiff would not in the context of the article bear any defamatory meaning in relation to him. It is indeed unreasonable to seizeupon this only statement out of context in order to give the article a defamatory sense against the plaintiff », a t-il expliqué.
A C T A P U B L I C A SAMEDI 09 MAI 2015 BIZWEEK ÉDITION 44 7 REMOVING AND DEALING WITH BAD ASSETS A must for our Banking Sector As Bramer Banking Corporation Limited (now National Commercial Bank), has been plagued by continuing loss, we need to understand, from a banking perspective, that the sources of such deficit is primarily from troubled assets from its balance sheet. The chain of events revolving around the banking and financial services sector has led to varying states of disarray amongst the public. Financial institutions and the government seek to redress and stabilize as to implement strategies for one particular bank. The scope of troubled assets in banking results from uncertain return from the assets, bad debts, and ‘toxic assets’, whose value has fallen significantly and is no longer functioning in the market. In such instances where non-performing assets intervene in the business process and progress, shareholders and bondholders will stand to lose money as the bank will face the risk of becoming insolvent, and as a result, to be recapitalized, nationa-lized or liquidated. GOOD BANK V/S BAD BANK The structure of a good bank is a financial institution which has succeeded to create a separate entity for its ‘bad assets’. Being free from bad and troubled assets, a good bank is able to restore investor, shareholder and market confidence, allowing the raising of more capital easily, at affordable rates, and a stabilized lending of loans. In structuring a bad bank, the ultimate goal of the bad bank is whether it will liquidate the remaining good assets or continue to generate house business operations based on a strategic plan. Such move, nevertheless, implies various repercussions concerning ownership of the bad bank, legal and regulatory structure, capital, liquidity requirements, management, composition of the asset pool to be transferred and valuation of those assets. However, if the bank focuses its attention and strategy entirely on loan recovery and self-liquidation, then the funds recovered from the troubled assets in the bad bank are paid to shareholders in the formof a dividend or interest payment after any repayment of debt raised by the bad bank to fund the purchase of the troubled assets. Moreover, assuming that the bad bank’s sole objective is to liquidate troubled assets, a limited regulatory oversight is required. The transfer of ongoing business operations, in addition to troubled assets, is more likely to require a banking charter or the satisfaction of relevant regulatory requirements. HOW TO DEAL WITH BAD ASSETS ? There exist various ways of dealing with bad assets : SELLER’S OR REVERSE AUCTION Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke proposed a reverse or seller’s auction where financial institutions would place bids with the Treasury for the sale of toxic assets at prices they deem close to held-to-maturity values. Treasury would then purchase the offers most attractively priced to the government. Underlying this approach is the notion that, after these purchases, banks would have a basis for valuing toxic assets. Rather than using fire-sale prices, which would accelerate capital mark downs, the auction prices would provide a better gauge. Also, taxpayers would benefit to the extent that assets are purchased for a price lower than hold-to-maturity value. ADDITIONAL CAPITAL INFUSIONS Infusing capital into troubled financial institutions has the very obvious positive effect of increasing banks’available capital. However, as the public recently disco-vered, increasing banks’capital does not necessarily increase available credit, nor does it do anything immediately or directly to address how to resolve the toxic assets still sitting on banks’balance sheets. The first rounds of funds are directly invested in financial institutions with few conditions on the use of such funds. VALUING ASSETS A challenge in establishing a bad bank is the valuation of troubled assets. Financial institutions have reported significant concerns with the current interpretations of mark-to-market accounting requirements for assets in illiquid markets. In illiquid markets, such as the markets for most troubled assets, assets required to be marked-to-market may be held at a valuation based on the institution’s internal model. Internal models are based on management’s assessments of various factors that may include limited market price information, credit expectations, whether payments are current or delinquent and anticipated losses. These models will vary by institution, resulting in different carrying values for similar assets and asset classes. Financial institutions and their financing partners will need to determine the transfer prices of troubled assets, including whether to transfer at book value or at recent trading prices, if different. Assets transferred at less than carrying value will require an additional write-down by the good, transferring bank. Current investors and regulators can be expected to raise questions regarding any asset write downs in connection with establishing a bad bank. The financial institution’s book value for an asset, however, may not reflect the price at which a private investor is interested in acquiring the asset. ASSET SELECTION Selection of the asset portfolio is a critical factor in the ultimate success of a good bank-bad bank transaction. Financial institutions must transfer a significant portion of their bad assets in order to achievethe benefits of a bad bank model, without stripping their balance sheets of performing assets. An institution should also consider the overall size of the resulting good bank. There are regulatory, market, ratings and counterparty benefits to maintaining a large-size good bank. Portfolio mix will be important to the bad bank’s ability to achieveits goals. Given the limited market for troubled assets, it is unlikely a bad bank willachievea short-termgoal of liquidation. An institution must structure the bad bank to align the goals of the private investor with the capital structure of the new entity and the asset pool characteristics. For example, a bad bank funded with interest-bearing debt needs to hold a portfolio of assets generating current returns sufficient to satisfy the debt obligations. ASSET MANAGEMENT The good bank must consider the ongoing management of the transferred assets. Options include having the good bank transfer management resources to the bad bank, providing management services on a contract basis, or having the private investors manage, or hire asset managers for the portfolio. Managing assets through the new bad bank entity should simplify and target decision-making with respect to the troubled assets. Independent bad bank removing toxic assets established to liquidate or obtain the best current price for an asset will not face the conflicting goal of maintaining long-termlending and banking relationships with borrowers. As a result, decisions focused on the goals of the bad bank — such as liquidation or obtaining current value for an asset — will take priority over borrowerfocused goals or longer-termasset-performance goals. A bad bank with more diverse or long-termoperating goals may face ongoing conflicts in managing troubled assets. If a bad bank is concerned with its long-termbusiness prospects, care should be taken to align the entity’s interests with those of its investors to ensure management of troubled assets is conducted in a manner consistent with all parties’objectives. Sources : 1) The Top 10 ways to deal with Toxic assets, By Nicole Ibotson and Kevin Petrasic. 2) Journal of Securities Law, Regulation & ComplianceVol. 2 No. 4,pp. 289–309 : Removing toxic assets from balance sheets : Structures based on the good bank-bad bank model. Anna T. Pinedo



Autres parutions de ce magazine  voir tous les numéros


Liens vers cette page
Couverture seule :


Couverture avec texte parution au-dessus :


Couverture avec texte parution en dessous :